On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 4:49 PM, Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu> wrote:
> Hi Mike,
>
> On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 03:15:12PM +0200, Mike Belshe wrote:
> > You're welcome to ask the browser implementors, but a new protocol
> > namespace is really a non-starter. We can't kick protocol versioning out
> > to the users for sorting out.
> >
> > From a protocol specification perspective, SPDY does not mandate SSL.
> >
> > From a browser perspective, I don't think the browsers are going to be
> keen
> > on having multiple, experimental HTTP/2.0 or SPDY specs implemented
> > concurrently. It's just a coding mess.
>
> This is exactly what they've been doing and both Chrome and Mozilla have
> SPDY right now. I'm not talking about having *multiple* experimental specs,
> just one stable standard and one experimental from which the next standard
> will be built. This is exactly what is happening right now, and you know
> too
> well that it will not stop here !
>
I'm pretty familiar with what the browsers do, and they don't do this :-)
So I must be misunderstanding what you mean.
If you're talking about how a feature goes from dev channel to beta channel
to release channel in chrome, thats true. But its not used the way I
thought you were asking it to be used - features don't stay locked at one
level - they either get rolled into the next version (which is ~3 weeks
apart!) or they get kicked out. In other words, all features are always on
path to get shipped within ~10weeks.
Mike
> > So we probably have to pick just one implementation per piece of
> software.
> > As for what people implement, they should try the variants they think
> make
> > sense, and then come back to the group with information about what they
> > learned.
>
> Agreed.
>
> Cheers,
> Willy
>
>